Because I seem to have “an ax to grind” with many folks (some fellow ax nuts, some nuts in other ways), perhaps I ought to apologize beforehand for any ego-harm some of my comments (plus unintended prejudices and bias) in the discussions below may cause.

Rest assured, however, that my intent here is to elevate the potential usefulness of an ax – one of the tools which, as the future unfolds, I believe we will be glad that we know how to apply seriously and efficiently.

At the same time I wholeheartedly welcome constructive criticism, of course.

May 30, 2013

A friend living in Slovakia (the country of my birth and childhood) recently sent us a video in which he processes firewood, using strictly hand tools. It demonstrates his personal twist to what was once traditional in many regions of Europe, but uncommon in North America.Before you view the actual video, I feel compelled to insert a bit of a profile on the man himself:Among the people I've come to know well enough to form a solid view of, Igor Vateha is one of the 'pearls'. Glaringly unassuming and humble, the somewhat 'realistic' of the Daniel Quinn fans would likely consider similarly-living individuals as 'leavers'. From what I observe, the majority of them, for the most part, dream and TALK about how good it would be to leave the 'takers' path… while -- within the context of possibilities available to him -- Igor simply does it.Along with his wife Katka and three children, they maintain a small homestead where electricity or engine-driven gadgets are not needed. When he occasionally visits the nearest village he rides a horse. There isn't a day, he once told me, that he is without an ax in his hands.What you see him demonstrate, he does on a daily basis. Before the winter sets in, their shed is supplied with 1m to 1.5m long dry logs (mostly dead trees to begin with) from which he prepares enough fuel for their two masonry stoves. The heater takes 50cm pieces and the cookstove 30cm. After years of experimenting with firewood processing variations, the method demonstrated in the video is what he has settled on.To North Americans it may seem odd. One reason is that the considerations of how one man, with hand tools only, takes care of his family's firewood needs are several generations in the past. Before the age of chainsaws, the standard was a gasoline engine-powered circular saw for the bucking of logs into stove length billets. Before then horse-powered drag saws did the same. But suppose that one man has none of these aids. Yes, large round logs can be bucked up into stove-length pieces with a one-man crosscut or a frame/'swede' saw, and only then split by hand -- the way we do it in North America. Well, Igor has tried that too, but thinks that what he demonstrates is a less energy-expanding method. I think he has a point.

Now, a bit of food for thought: do you, dear folks, imagine that chainsaws will hum forever? I do not. As for Igor, he simply does what a man of his convictions does --- walks his unassuming talk…

April 25, 2013

Earlier this year we ordered a two-pack of double bit "cruiser" axes from the Barco company in Pennsylvania; one for a fellow ax user in Nova Scotia, the other for us to test out and review.

First of all, let me say that I consider this ax to be very unique. I'll elaborate on that, but for now, some of my first impressions:

Barco's website description of their axes sounds very impressive. They don't say too much on the specific product descriptions, but the implication is that these are US made:

"These are the finest quality US made axes available. The Kelly Perfect® features a full polished head with deep bevels to reduce binding of the head in the wood, painted a distinctive blue, while the Kelly Woodslasher® line is painted red with polished edge."

However, I am not convinced, and though I would like to think that this company would not deliberately mislead their customers, at this point I am doubtful about the origins of this cruiser ax.

The most obvious thing to cause my suspicion that these "Forged with pride in the USA" axes are imported, was that the heads are not stamped with any name or trademark, or even weight. The heads do have a faint
"BARCO / WEAR SAFETY GOGGLES USA / 08 1" printed on one face.
(Oh, thanks for reminding me, where did I leave those safety goggles that I always wear when using an ax...?) As soon as the red paint is removed, the only mention of USA is gone with it. If one of the last remaining ax manufacturers in the US was proud of their product, don't you think they would be sure to leave a prominent trademark, one that will speak to the quality of their axes in years to come?

Back to the actual ax (whatever the origin), the "2 1/2 lb. Kelly Woodslasher Michigan double bit cruisers" from Barco.

Taking a closer look at the one we kept, it seemed worthwhile to document how the edges had been ground. Or over-ground, I should say. The edge had been unevenly ground, too much taken off at the top and bottom corners, with one corner nearly burned and a big burr left on the edge.

Peter spent half an hour thinning down one of the faces to the kind of edge we keep on our felling axes, which is thinner than the standard these days, but nearly on par with how the old fellas in these parts liked their axes. He didn't file right up to the corners, but the top right one already looks like it's had too much metal removed.

I should add that we hadn't done anything to the handle by this point; I could already tell that, at 20mm, it was thicker than I would like to use (though admittedly thinner than most conventional ax handles these days), but Peter suggested that I try it out as is.

So, I ran off into the woods to give it a test run, felled a small green fir tree and then quickly hewed a short piece of the trunk.

The thick handle bothered me, and I felt like it should have been longer for the weight of the head, but overall, I was pretty pleased with the little cruiser by that point. Impressed with how clean a hewing job it did, I was already thinking about the review I'd be giving it; if not glowing, at least pretty positive. Well, that was before I went to limb the few small branches…

About three-quarters of the way along the length of this little tree, something felt wrong. There was a fair bit of swearing involved when I looked at the ax; the edge had gotten both chipped off and bent over -- "rolled" is the proper term, I think. So I went back over the length of the tree and located the largest limbs, which were all smaller than 1/2 an inch in diameter.

This is where I started feeling that I was in possession of a pretty unique little ax; I've never before heard of this happening. I am by no means knowledgeable when it comes to steel quality and forged tools in general, but I was under the impression that edge tools can sometimes be too hard, causing the steel to chip, or too soft, causing it to buckle or bend over. Never seen both at once though…

Here's a closer look at the edge. Unique, all right! ;)

I had taken another ax along that day, a 2 3/4 lb. Swedish military surplus single bit on a 27" handle, with the edge filed down the way we like them. So before heading back home, I felled and limbed another fir with that one. The edge remained intact…

Then for good measure I chopped down and limbed a third tree using only a kukri knife, a new one that a good friend had kindly sent for us to test out. The edge on this kukri was thinner than others I'd seen, but when put through the same treatment as the cruiser, it passed the test with flying colours, no damage whatsoever.

Thus I suspect that it can't have been only those 'tough' branches that were to blame…

Back on topic, now: At Peter's suggestion I took the cruiser out again, this time using the opposite face (I took the burr off and smoothed the transition between the micro-bevel and the rest of the face but did no actual re-shaping this time). I managed to take down a small green beech with a great deal of effort, and the edge had virtually no penetration ability, unsurprisingly.

The next day Peter removed the damaged edge on the first face, this time leaving a thicker profile on it. By this time I had gotten tired of using that handle the way it had come from the factory, so I took a rasp to it and pretty much just removed the lacquer, then smoothed it down with a piece of glass. Never got too close to the head though…

I happened to think of taking photos of the labels on either side of the handle before removing them.

Good thing too, this one had a very important message, as I was soon to find out.

Not as thin as I'd like, but it sure felt better after being slightly flattened, with the lacquer removed.

Then I headed off into to the woods and picked a medium-sized poplar to test it out on.

I was nearly done notching it, when I took another swing and the handle came back empty, with the head lying in the snow at the base of the tree. I just stared in disbelief. No, I never hit the handle; that fine American hickory just couldn't take the combination of the soft green poplar wood and the girl swinging it. (Weren't these cruisers supposed to be used by grown men?)

The "wear safety goggles" is still faintly visible; now I understand... Shouldn't they have added "wear steel toe boots"?

I'd be interested in hearing some opinions on this one; have you ever seen such a porous-looking hickory?

Another thing we realized once the handle broke was that the wood was amazingly light, not even close to the weight of normal hickory. If we take Barco's word that the handle was USA hickory, not some strange Chinese wood that looks like an Aero bar on the inside, then our tentative conclusions are that this wood had dry rot.

Okay, but we didn't give up on this ax yet; Peter knocked the remaining broken handle out of the eye, and quickly fitted it with a thin (18mm) 30" maple handle. This time I tried splitting some firewood with the still original (thick) face. This ax does not have a great splitting profile, but it worked fine with the "flicking" technique I use.

Then, with that lovely new maple handle, I headed off to see what damage I could do next. Taking along the Swedish military surplus ax again, I did some comparisons of the chopping efficiency. Not a real fair comparison, but the Swedish ax's extra weight and the Barco's (now) longer handle balanced out a little bit.

I took down a pair of dying poplars, trying to make an unbiased comparison of the effort expended, then did the same with two larger firs. (One more strike against this "USA" cruiser: the steel has such poor edge retention in comparison to all of the other axes I've been using. I could hardly believe how fast it dulled even while bucking poplar with no knots.)

The Swedish ax won, hands down. I chopped the trees down in approximately 1/3 less time, and as I limbed their respective firs, the Swedish ax left much "cleaner" cuts, while the cruiser tore the bark surrounding the limbs more.

I wasn't happy with the edge on the cruiser (the one that had been thinned, damaged, repaired and left thicker) so in the spirit of second chances, Peter filed it down again, though not quite as thin as the first time. Again, I chopped down a couple firs, then carefully limbed them. Whew, no damage! Then I took down a tiny little fir to use as a pushing pole for the larger trees, and started limbing the 1/4 " diameter branches. Whoops, there goes another piece of the edge! A few good cuss-words, and I headed home, since I hadn't taken a back-up ax along that time.

That was the end of my using this ax for the time being. During the time that I was testing the Barco cruiser, I'd also done some chopping with several other axes of adequately thin edge profiles, none of which ever suffered torn edges and broken handles. I might add that the maple handle is still intact, after being put through tougher treatment than the hickory one lasted long enough to endure...

So, would I recommend this ax to anyone based on my experiences? Com'on, now, do I really have to answer that one? ;)

Addendum by Peter Vido:

There were two features of the Barco Cruiser that glared at me immediately upon the first visual examination. I told Ashley that I would comment on these in some sort of 'addendum' to her review and that she could leave that aspect undiscussed, which, for the most part, she did.

Now, however belated, here are my observations:

It occurred to me that 'our' Cruiser was likely among a batch of early Monday, or end of the shift on Friday, ax heads. Either that, or its edge was ground by a person new to the job -- to whom no one adequately explained that the corners of the bit (all of them) ought to be 'babied'…

Furthermore, the loose-handedness of the grinder accounts for only a portion of what I perceive as a notable flaw with both upper corners. Namely, I believe that the original designer of this ax pattern meant it to have slightly more steel in the upper corner. (If he didn't, I think he should have.) :)

Yes, the 'Michigan' is among the North American ax patterns with more (if not the MOST) rounded corners. My intent here is not to debate the respective virtues of round versus more sharply pronounced corners, but to point out that -- in view of the 'inevitable' shape-shifting many ax faces will undergo during the subsequent use -- it is unperceptive on part of the makers to NOT provide the ax users with some grace in this regard.

[It is indeed rare to find an old (while also much used) ax with an even face -- meaning one that still somewhat resembles the edge lines of the initial model. Most have far more steel missing from the upper half of the bit than the lower. This is 'natural' because the upper half receives way more nicks than its lower counterpart. When these damages are filed/ground off, the ax owners often do not re-shape the rest of the face so as to maintain the original line. The reason is simple -- it takes a lot of time to make up for even less than a 1/16" nick.]

Anyway, I have a suspicion that when BARCO made their 'moulds' for these heads to be shaped in, an error had occurred and that little extra bit of steel has no room within the mold to be accommodated. Just a speculation…

The conclusion? Well, I'd like this 'Cruiser's overall shape better if the upper corners extended at least 1/4" further forward and then gradually blended with the rest of the line towards the centre of the bit. The corner could still retain the classical 'Michigan' shape, of course.

In addition, perhaps I ought to explain what exactly was the edge geometry I imposed on this Barco Cruiser -- the one it could not gracefully tolerate (but many of our other axes can…).

A little background:

During the early stages of my ax sharpening search, the local old timers were rather vague with advice. They plainly did not think of head/edge shaping in terms of specific angles; if I showed them one of my axes, they felt the bit between their thumb and first finger and (usually) declared it too thick here or there… Only one of them, Arnold Hanscomb, was explicit: he laid a file between the edge and the centre of the ax's eye and said but one word: "FLAT! " He fixed my gaze and repeated "Flat… then you will have an ax that cuts." ALL our axes back then failed that parameter, most of them miserably. Though I later tried to meet his specs, I too failed, mostly because it took a lot of time along with many good files to properly convert the worn and abused old axes we had collected, which had the cheeks too thick to allow for the file (or other straight edge) to lay 'flat' -- that is to contact at once the eye and (almost) the edge.

Some years later I came across Dudley Cook's Keeping Warm with an Ax (now published as The Ax Book) and grasped a few additional details which the old Arnold did not mention, but understood himself, I believe.

Cook, by the way, was far more explicit with regard to ax sharpening than anyone else whose written advice I've come across to date. The angles he offered for the respective parts of the head geometry are, I believe, very sound. Arnold's suggestion of a 'flat' line between the edge and eye more or less corresponds to Cook's 10 degrees. BUT, that holds true to within 1/16" (for felling ax) to 1/8 " (for swamping/limbing) of the very edge -- where the combined angle is gradually increased to approximately 30 degrees in order to provide the needed crumble resistance. Well, 30 degrees or so means lifting the file (or stone) so that it aims about finger thickness above the face. This applies, more or less to majority of North American axes, the thickness of which at the centre of the eye ranges from 1" to 1-1/8".

However, there is a seemingly tiny difference over exactly what distance that increase in angles takes place. Tiny in measure but significant in performance. Cook's 1/16" is pushing many axes' limits, I think, and I did not thin the Barco 'cruiser' quite that much. But close. If one is to test an ax, I reckon the thing better be tested…unless "cool" looks is more important than hot work. In this case I conclude that if the cruising men wish to look cool, Barco may serve them well. But to make an honest living actually chopping trees..?

You see, after that initial edge failure, my dressing it to a far more 'safe' (but rather useless) profile and then making it somewhat more useful again (albeit with a more forgiving angle), it failed second time. By then the micro bevel was at least 35 degrees and arrived to that increase over a strong 1/4" -- and that ain't good, period.

March 27, 2013

"For a skill so paramount to the future, and with precious few experts (and fewer still teachers), this is not an opportunity to be unconcerned with. Amidst the twilight, the time to learn this skill, and others more broadly, is already nearly past. Intensive training is a remedy for laxity, and a god send at that." --Eric C.

For the past couple of years we have been privileged to associate (albeit via phone and letters only) with an Australian outback-born Lawrence Dowsett, whose father handed him a sharp ax -- not to play 'cowboys and Indians' with, but to help take care of the family's firewood needs -- when he was 5 years old!

Now a horse-riding ranch hand in Wyoming, he is an accomplished farrier, saddle maker and, well... I'd best quote his (evidently appreciative) wife: "Peter, there is NOTHING Lawrence can't do!"

Lawrence initially contacted us with interest in scythes, although most of our conversations since then have revolved around axes, and it is obvious that he is one of the contemporary 'gems' on the subject. Looking now back over the 40 years of my own ax-using journey, I'm quite certain that had I had the opportunity to attend Lawrence's course at the beginning, much fumbling and stumbling would have been spared...

Last year Lawrence began to teach the rangers working in parks (where chainsaws are officially a taboo) how to use and maintain crosscut saws and axes, a skill they sorely lacked. I am glad to hear that this service is also available to the general public.

We recently heard, from Lawrence himself, that he will be teaching axemanship classes at the Ninemile Ranger Station in Montana. The first one will be held from April 29th to May 3rd, the second will on May 6th to the 10th. If there is enough interest, more classes may be scheduled later.

In Lawrence's own words:

"First all participants will be given a good quality vintage double bit axe of near new condition as well as a new double sided carborundum sharpening stone and files. Handles of good quality will also be provided. At the end of the class (which is one week) l also give a gift to each student for their participation, a good quality arkansas stone. Also students may bring a couple of their own axes to work on if they wish to do so, and l will have them in the field every day to teach chopping, techniques and related matters. The axes, handles, stones and files are the student's property at the end of the class."

March 21, 2013

Here's a guest post from our friend and fellow "challenger of the status quo" Eric C. from Maine, followed by commentary from Peter.

Handle made by Eric C., described below.

Getting a grip -- handle overkill by Eric C.

I think the purism that people still cling to regarding traits of the ideal axe handle is probably contributing to the general supply of shite handles. Hickory is probably way overcut as a result, probably compromising its quality to some extent. I don't know anything about trees from a scientific standpoint, but I know that you don't need to use sawn and then lathe turned (or even riven and hand carved) hickory handles for every axe of every weight. The shrinking abundance will continue to decline until we figure out how to redefine abundance further down the line.

I have heard that White Oak was once the preferred handle material (from an axe historian specializing in the late 1700s until around 1900). It was cut for ships and tool handles, presumably, and this was when population and consumption was way lower. In the absence of oil-driven machines, which is an inevitability, the supply of hickory and ash will probably drop like a brick. Not taken into account is the startling decrease in the quality of hickory handle stock.The handle pictured here was made out of a stave of Birch around 3 inches in diameter at the large end. There are two knots in it, and the piece wasn't large enough to completely fill the eye, with about a 6mm or 8mm gap on the poll side which I filled with a shim. I don't believe Birch to be as strong as maple or ash, but I still thinned this one down to 3/4 of an inch, and in one place down to 5/8 of an inch.

Since it wouldn't have given me enough material to work with by splitting it in half, I worked with it in the round as a single stave, to try and get one handle out of. The smaller end became the knob, and I just hewed the handle off to one side. Since I hewed the knob out of the small end with the circumferential grain, where there is way less stress and risk of breakage, I was able to get grain parallel to direction of force on the upper half or two thirds of the handle. How strong does a 24" handle need to be for an axe that weighs less than two pounds? I have no reservations about using this axe for jobs within its realistic limitations.

Material of this size is usually burned, left to rot in the woods, or maybe turned into spoons or something by the slightly less wasteful but still somewhat resourceful spoon-carving hippy. Not that there is anything wrong with those things, but when said man goes to fell a hickory to make a couple handles for 2.5 pound axes when he could have used a Birch branch and produced a handle more than durable enough to be used in context with the weight of the head and job at hand, the context changes.

The inspiration for that axe was the Vido's little Sandvik axe mentioned here (giving credit where it's due), with a Birch handle of the same grain pattern and size, and the same size head. They still use that axe extensively, and it's been through more than mine probably ever will. It also has 5 knots compared to the measly 2 knots in mine (wish it had more, was disappointed).

An abundance of material is still here, but not an abundance of prerequisite skills and the time to nurse them into a deeper sense of what will work and what won't.

Commentary from Peter Vido:

Thanks for sharing your status quo-challenging thoughts. You and I seem to be on the same page regarding ax handles -- their basic shape, thickness and what material they be made of. The notion that an ax needs a handle from the strongest/most break-resistant wood (regardless of distance it is obtained) I also consider to be both myth and a trap. For centuries axes have been swung on locally sourced handles, and many of the coldest regions (Siberia, a large part of Scandinavia and the Canadian 'North') have no species of adequately thick dimensions stronger than white birch.

To address the hickory obsession: It may well be the Northern Hemisphere's finest ax-handle wood; however, the pertinent question (at this shaky point in history) is: do we all need it? On several levels, a strong case can be made for a definite "NO".

Nevertheless, on the whole we've reached this stage (of our sleepy journey) where hickory can pose as the cat's meow of ax handle wood to the point that some of the prestigious European ax makers (Gransfors Bruks, for instance) now find it profitable to import hickory from USA, stick it into their fine ax heads and ship a portion back across the ocean for sale to American ax lovers. Plus, the European populace is now also being trained to purchase axes outfitted with this famous wood. I consider that preposterous; instead of inspiring young people to appreciate the gifts of creation laying at their feet, and helping them learn how to best use them, we let the beast of Globalization pursue its insidious agenda…

What many folks today do not seem to understand is that in order to fully fulfill its function, an ax does not need to be wielded with brute force; what's actually required is a type of force that's different from what most inexperienced ax users perceive.

In brief, a moment before the bit hits the target, the direct force behind it is greatly reduced, and the weight of the head (along with the already generated velocity) is left to pursue the task. That is how the old-timers could "chop all day and love it". And their very slim handles (mostly sugar maple or white ash, along with some hornbeam (Carpinuscaroliniana, also called "ironwood") lasted for years.

Contacting with full force right through the stroke is one way to break handles -- even many of those made of the so-called 'perfectly aligned' hickory. Besides, a hickory handle is in itself no guarantee against breakage, especially nowadays. For instance, here is a firsthand true story:

Back in 1979, an old man gave me a 20-pound head for a fence post pounding maul. Being slightly more naive than I am now, I fitted it with a store-bought hickory handle. Shortly afterwards a friend asked to borrow it, and the next day he broke that handle. As a respectful borrower, before bringing it back he bought another new hickory handle and replaced the broken one. Not very many fence posts later the handle snapped again, right under the head -- which flew off and narrowly missed my wife Faye who was steadying the post for me. No, I did not overreach; those boughten hickory handles apparently could not take that 20 pounds of steel (with an admittedly small eye in the maul).

My brother Alex walked into the nearby woods, came back shortly with a hornbeamsapling and replaced the broken hickory with it.

That was the summer of 1980. Now, 32 years and I don't know how many hundreds of posts later, that very same handle is still intact. It never took a season off work, and although I have meant to replace it long ago -- just as a precaution to not endanger Faye, who still steadies the posts -- it functions as it always did, driving posts until the ground freezes solid in late autumn.

So there you have it: One example of local wood versus imported hickory...